DID YOU NOT HEAR ME SOLDAT??! NO MORE LAME, HOGWASH, MISTACHICKEN EXCUSES. I SAID PICK UP THAT WEAPON & CHAAAAAAAARGE!! GO TO VASSAL AT ONCE & PREPARE THE EVIL ALLIED ABOMINATION FOR OCCUPATION! MAYBE ILL EVEN LET THE US SEND U LEND-LEASE, ON OCCASION. AAAAAHH, THE SMELL OF VICTORY IS ALMOST BITTERSWEET!Are you crazy today??? I want to win too, but the red menace beat me once. You think you can do better????
Operation Barbarossa
Moderator: maddog986
RE: Operation Barbarossa
My Lord Parruski,
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
RE: Operation Barbarossa
ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN
My Lord Parruski,DID YOU NOT HEAR ME SOLDAT??! NO MORE LAME, HOGWASH, MISTACHICKEN EXCUSES. I SAID PICK UP THAT WEAPON & CHAAAAAAAARGE!! GO TO VASSAL AT ONCE & PREPARE THE EVIL ALLIED ABOMINATION FOR OCCUPATION! MAYBE ILL EVEN LET THE US SEND U LEND-LEASE, ON OCCASION. AAAAAHH, THE SMELL OF VICTORY IS ALMOST BITTERSWEET!Are you crazy today??? I want to win too, but the red menace beat me once. You think you can do better????
UUUUUHHHH. I think I will back down. I have no time to get into another game.
But someday I am going to kick your ass.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Warspite1ORIGINAL: parusski
ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN
My Lord Parruski,DID YOU NOT HEAR ME SOLDAT??! NO MORE LAME, HOGWASH, MISTACHICKEN EXCUSES. I SAID PICK UP THAT WEAPON & CHAAAAAAAARGE!! GO TO VASSAL AT ONCE & PREPARE THE EVIL ALLIED ABOMINATION FOR OCCUPATION! MAYBE ILL EVEN LET THE US SEND U LEND-LEASE, ON OCCASION. AAAAAHH, THE SMELL OF VICTORY IS ALMOST BITTERSWEET!Are you crazy today??? I want to win too, but the red menace beat me once. You think you can do better????
UUUUUHHHH. I think I will back down. I have no time to get into another game.
But someday I am going to lick your ass.
Steiner! - there's no room for that on the forum [:-]
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: Operation Barbarossa
ORIGINAL: sulla05
Glantz is hardly an author to use to back up many things. Most people consider his books " written from the Soviet point of view ".
They are good reads and full of information but their slant is obvious.
I am not sure that "most people" do consider the books slanted. The west, for decades, had a "slant". And that was all about, well, the west. It has not been that long ago that Soviet archives were opened to western writers. Much has been learned, especially in the areas of operations and strategy. One big discovery has been that the Soviets did not constantly use human waves. The Russians did use those tactics, especially early in the war, but it did not take long until more sophisticated battle plans were being used. The west only knew of a war in Russia in an abstract sense. There was no real understanding of the space or numbers involved. But there was constant cheer-leading(and rightfully so) of what "our boys" are doing to win against the "Nazis". And when the war ended all the books about the war in Russia were written from the German point of view. And that point of view was slanted. The Germans wanted to prove to the world that the Russians were clumsy, stupid, wasteful...and Germany lost because of Mr. Frost or that "corporal".
The point is the West really had no idea that Russia was as much a sleeping giant as America was. And until recently, I too always thought in terms of "America won the war". America did win; totally against Japan. Against Germany, we won in France and Western Germany. And yes we helped speed up the Russian advance, but...
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
RE: Operation Barbarossa
I BLAME YOU FOR THIS DISCREPANCY. YOU WILL NOW OBEY MY EDICTS AS A DISCIPLE. LOAD UP THE CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY!! YOU WILL NOW LEARN WHY YOU FEAR THE NIGHT O BRAVE PARUSSKI, FOR I AM THE WELLSPRING FROM WHICH U FLOW!!But there was constant cheer-leading(and rightfully so) of what "our boys" are doing to win against the "Nazis". And when the war ended all the books about the war in Russia were written from the German point of view. And that point of view was slanted. The Germans wanted to prove to the world that the Russians were clumsy, stupid, wasteful...and Germany lost because of Mr. Frost or that "corporal".
http://www.russiancampaign.com/Site/Welcome.html
- Attachments
-
- jamesearl..inconan.jpg (25.76 KiB) Viewed 157 times
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:17 am
RE: Operation Barbarossa
I wasn't talking about Soviet vs western slant. I was talking about German vs. Soviet.
The German army did some horrible things on the Russian front, other places as well. But that does not mean that having a anti-nazi way of thinking should cloud your judgement of the capabilities of the German army.
Glantz,especially in his Kursk book, denigrates the German forces and commanders. At least in my reading of that book and a few others it seems that he takes for granted that the Soviet archives are unbiased while he always questions any German sources. Especially when he talks about German commanders recollections. I am not saying that they are completely truthful by any means. I just think he should doubt both written records, to a degree.
There is no doubt in my mind that the German army if allowed to fight a war of manuever would have bled Russia dry.
The German army did some horrible things on the Russian front, other places as well. But that does not mean that having a anti-nazi way of thinking should cloud your judgement of the capabilities of the German army.
Glantz,especially in his Kursk book, denigrates the German forces and commanders. At least in my reading of that book and a few others it seems that he takes for granted that the Soviet archives are unbiased while he always questions any German sources. Especially when he talks about German commanders recollections. I am not saying that they are completely truthful by any means. I just think he should doubt both written records, to a degree.
There is no doubt in my mind that the German army if allowed to fight a war of manuever would have bled Russia dry.
Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
RE: Operation Barbarossa
ORIGINAL: sulla05
I wasn't talking about Soviet vs western slant. I was talking about German vs. Soviet.
The German army did some horrible things on the Russian front, other places as well. But that does not mean that having a anti-nazi way of thinking should cloud your judgement of the capabilities of the German army.
Glantz,especially in his Kursk book, denigrates the German forces and commanders. At least in my reading of that book and a few others it seems that he takes for granted that the Soviet archives are unbiased while he always questions any German sources. Especially when he talks about German commanders recollections. I am not saying that they are completely truthful by any means. I just think he should doubt both written records, to a degree.
There is no doubt in my mind that the German army if allowed to fight a war of manuever would have bled Russia dry.
I think people who don't know me fail to understand that I am PRO-German(cool military stuff).[Not sure if you meant me].
Now as to the freedom to fight as wanted by Hoth, Guderian and Bock, then maybe, just maybe things would have turned out differently.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
RE: Operation Barbarossa
ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
I am currently reading Operation Barbarossa. One thing I am not clear on is why Hitler attacked Russia in the first place. If anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.
Ask Adolph! The following is an excerpt from his speech to the Reichstag on December 11, 1941 (in which he also declares war on the USA)...
ORIGINAL: Adolph Hitler
My Deputies! Men of the Reichstag!
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored, motorized and infantry divisions. The human and material resources for them were abundantly available. [In this regard] I can make only one promise to you, my deputies, and to the entire German nation: while people in democratic countries understandably talk a lot about armaments, in National Socialist Germany all the more will actually be produced. It has been that way in the past, and it is not any different now. Whenever decisive action has to be taken, we will have, with each passing year, more and, above all, better quality weapons.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart. Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
To sum up... god told him to attack Russia.
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."
Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.
Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.
Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:17 am
RE: Operation Barbarossa
No, not you I meant specifically Glantz.
Since you brought up Hoth , here is one thing from Glantz.
He believes that it was the Soviets who forced the Germans to turn toward Prokhorovka. It is there in black and white that Hoth had always planned to turn to right toward there and take on the Russian tank army.
Like I said, do not get me wrong. His books are both enjoyable and fact filled. It is only when he is saying " this is what general so-and-so was thinking here " etc. that I have some issues with his books.
Since you brought up Hoth , here is one thing from Glantz.
He believes that it was the Soviets who forced the Germans to turn toward Prokhorovka. It is there in black and white that Hoth had always planned to turn to right toward there and take on the Russian tank army.
Like I said, do not get me wrong. His books are both enjoyable and fact filled. It is only when he is saying " this is what general so-and-so was thinking here " etc. that I have some issues with his books.
Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
RE: Operation Barbarossa
ORIGINAL: sulla05
No, not you I meant specifically Glantz.
Since you brought up Hoth , here is one thing from Glantz.
He believes that it was the Soviets who forced the Germans to turn toward Prokhorovka. It is there in black and white that Hoth had always planned to turn to right toward there and take on the Russian tank army.
Like I said, do not get me wrong. His books are both enjoyable and fact filled. It is only when he is saying " this is what general so-and-so was thinking here " etc. that I have some issues with his books.
My oh my. Now for the big guns.
As Ambrose wrote in THE seminal: WHO REALLY WON THE WAR IN EUROPE? "Because of the pitiful state of education in America and Britain, westerners have the retarded idea that had aid not been given to Russia, Germany would have rolled all the way to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, a mere 8,600 kilometers from Berlin. But this was not possible. Sensible, intelligent people understand that Russia had the willpower and arms to stop the Nazi horde. The Soviet Union was so mighty that they only used 10% of their industrial capacity to build the machinery of war. Besides, less than 1% of all aid promised actually reached the Soviets".
There, no better authority than Ambrose.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Russia a sleeping giant? I don't think so. Not even close. Like I said before the day Germany surrendered is the day the soviet union began its decline. The USSR could either make bombs or feed its babies. Not both. Vodka ,women and weapons are the largest exports . I have to correct you when you say most books were written from the German point of view? Seriously I chuckled when I read that. You sound like a revisionist historian. What's next from you? The American civil war wasn't about slavery at all but states rights, was the ONLY reason why that war was fought. I can't take you seriously anymore.ORIGINAL: parusski
ORIGINAL: sulla05
Glantz is hardly an author to use to back up many things. Most people consider his books " written from the Soviet point of view ".
They are good reads and full of information but their slant is obvious.
I am not sure that "most people" do consider the books slanted. The west, for decades, had a "slant". And that was all about, well, the west. It has not been that long ago that Soviet archives were opened to western writers. Much has been learned, especially in the areas of operations and strategy. One big discovery has been that the Soviets did not constantly use human waves. The Russians did use those tactics, especially early in the war, but it did not take long until more sophisticated battle plans were being used. The west only knew of a war in Russia in an abstract sense. There was no real understanding of the space or numbers involved. But there was constant cheer-leading(and rightfully so) of what "our boys" are doing to win against the "Nazis". And when the war ended all the books about the war in Russia were written from the German point of view. And that point of view was slanted. The Germans wanted to prove to the world that the Russians were clumsy, stupid, wasteful...and Germany lost because of Mr. Frost or that "corporal".
The point is the West really had no idea that Russia was as much a sleeping giant as America was. And until recently, I too always thought in terms of "America won the war". America did win; totally against Japan. Against Germany, we won in France and Western Germany. And yes we helped speed up the Russian advance, but...
"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943
RE: Operation Barbarossa
As Ambrose wrote in THE seminal: WHO REALLY WON THE WAR IN EUROPE? "Because of the pitiful state of education in America and Britain, westerners have the retarded idea that had aid not been given to Russia, Germany would have rolled all the way to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, a mere 8,600 kilometers from Berlin. But this was not possible. Sensible, intelligent people understand that Russia had the willpower and arms to stop the Nazi horde. The Soviet Union was so mighty that they only used 10% of their industrial capacity to build the machinery of war. Besides, less than 1% of all aid promised actually reached the Soviets".
There, no better authority than Ambrose.
Is this a joke? If not then it might as well be. Ambrose??? Parruski....there is only one way for you to redeem yourself. You will stop everything in your life short of eating & breathing to repair this Van Dammage. Meet me on the Fields of Glory before your army rots away!!
[:'(]
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:17 am
RE: Operation Barbarossa
I am not sure who you are arguing with Parusski..
I am not saying that the war in Russia was ever going to be a walk-over or that the Russians didn't fight well in the end.
I also never stated that without the Western allied help they would have fallen.
I do however take issue with " The Soviet Union was so mighty that they only used 10% of their industrial capacity to build the machinery of war. Besides, less than 1% of all aid promised actually reached the Soviets". I simply refuse to believe that Russia only used 10% of their industrial capacity in WWII. I am not sure about the 1% on lend-lease but I can look that up.
Think on it. If the above were correct, Russia by only using 20-30% of their industrial might ( a 100-200% increase ) would have been able to take Germany out in a year and taken all of Europe and China with them.
For Russia as Germany it was a fight to the death with everyone in the end using 100% of their resources to end the war.
As far as my posts about books. I do not and probably will never understand why some writers put their own thoughts and ideas into history books. State the facts and use all the material for the reader to come up with his own. It is like being asked the trick question in english class. " What do you think the author was thinking or trying to convey"? Then when you give your opinion you are told it is wrong.
I am not saying that the war in Russia was ever going to be a walk-over or that the Russians didn't fight well in the end.
I also never stated that without the Western allied help they would have fallen.
I do however take issue with " The Soviet Union was so mighty that they only used 10% of their industrial capacity to build the machinery of war. Besides, less than 1% of all aid promised actually reached the Soviets". I simply refuse to believe that Russia only used 10% of their industrial capacity in WWII. I am not sure about the 1% on lend-lease but I can look that up.
Think on it. If the above were correct, Russia by only using 20-30% of their industrial might ( a 100-200% increase ) would have been able to take Germany out in a year and taken all of Europe and China with them.
For Russia as Germany it was a fight to the death with everyone in the end using 100% of their resources to end the war.
As far as my posts about books. I do not and probably will never understand why some writers put their own thoughts and ideas into history books. State the facts and use all the material for the reader to come up with his own. It is like being asked the trick question in english class. " What do you think the author was thinking or trying to convey"? Then when you give your opinion you are told it is wrong.
Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Slaak, your PM box is full, probably cluttered by propaganda leaflets about the new wonderful german colonial houses around Velikie Luki [:D]
H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Add to that the brochures for beachfront oil properties on the Caspian Sea sold to Italian investors! [:'(][:'(][:'(]Slaak, your PM box is full, probably cluttered by propaganda leaflets about the new wonderful german colonial houses around Velikie Luki
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year. [:)]
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
RE: Operation Barbarossa
If only Id been Il Duce!! Soon I will be!!!Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year.
- Attachments
-
- WiFFr3.jpg (148.26 KiB) Viewed 158 times
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Really makes me want to break out an actual real wargame. [:(]
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
RE: Operation Barbarossa
Parusski, is it possible that Ambrose was on a BPB binge when he wrote about only 1%
of LendLease aid reaching Russia?
I only ask because he was a well-known addict of the substance, and the figures I have of LL aid reaching Russia is 93% arrived, 7% lost.
What do you think? Possible?
of LendLease aid reaching Russia?
I only ask because he was a well-known addict of the substance, and the figures I have of LL aid reaching Russia is 93% arrived, 7% lost.
What do you think? Possible?
I have a subtle and cunning plan.